I remember taking calculus my first year in college. I had no foundation in it, and the teacher didn't explain anything, other than to say; "here is the formula". I did poorly and had to withdraw.
Later, I got some explaination of f(x), and everything fell into place. I made great grades with little study because it was now easy.
So the question is; was my brain structure mathematically flawed before so that I couldn't DO math, or was it that I didn't know what I was doing?
For most of us, it's about what we already understand. Perhaps the results that we are getting about "female brain structures" may actually be real data. What we need to look at is WHY. Perhaps we are teaching Math in the wrong way.
Give most anyone a good teacher and they can learn most anything.
IBM had a big shakeup in the 90's. They are pretty much a totally new company since then. They are now a services company and are pretty agnostic on platforms--even though they develop their own processor and OS--they are performance-centric.
I think you're just spouting. You have to acknowledge when companies do things "the good way" in oder to have credibility on criticizing bad companies. IBM has been competing on their ability and performance. They are one of the top companies in creating patents. And I don't see them practicing any monopoly abuses like they used to.
They are a totally reformed company, and I think that should be recognized. Their strategy is that they will be a facilitator in an open technology market. By releasing the patents, they are hoping to shore up the "free" software market. I don't see any "embrace and extend" strategy in giving away these patents--other than they allow development along a path where they have strength. But they won't be able to come along a sue people later, so it is good for developers in general if more companies adopted this strategy.
The opposing strategy is a Royalty/Patent hegenomy where no one can develop without paying you dues and implementing your standards. That's Microsoft, and THAT is a dark future for independant developers.
So please, state something specific in the past 6 years that proves your point on IBM.
Re:My personal favorite
on
Newsy Numbers
·
· Score: 1
This is because they can't afford good cable programming. What else are you going to do on a boring Friday night?;)
I've seen stats that show there is an inverse relationship between how much whoopi someone gets and their education level. PHD's almost get cobwebs compared to a good high-school drop out in a trailer park (not to denegrate anyone, but hey, there is a trend).
But to get back to the point, the people who are NOT educated or have access to birth control are the ones getting pregnant. If we want to make abortions more rare we will do three things; 1) Educate and make available methods of birth control. 2) Raise the minimum wage. The working poor creates desperate situations for single mothers and financial stress is the number one reason for divorce. 3) Get these church ladies off the education boards because all they are doing is pushing their own brand of piety.
It gets me angry that some who have it so well and think they are so close to God, want to practice their "survival of the fittest" economics with people. They refuse basic healthcare and a livealbe wage to the bottom tier of society. They refuse real sex education and birth control. Then they sit back from their ivory towers and tell the poor 16 year old girl who has no prospects, no future and is looking at raising a child alone that she MUST bring it to term and either raise it or give it up for adoption. I don't think there is anything remotely tougher than giving a kid you brought to term up for adoption.
If this were so important to God, why didn't he mention anything about fetuses in the Bible?
I feel sad that I immediately understood your reference to Toonces. I can still see that dumb stuffed doll steering the car on Saturday Night Live. Somehow, it was etched on my brain.
MJ and Cocaine used to be legal in the US. A better example would be the speed limit. US interstates were designed for 70 mph vehicles and todays cars are even better. So more people feel comfortable driving faster. So a significant amount of people were not going 55. That might have been a good reason for the law change.
Automakers and Standard Oil conspired to get rid of trolley cars in the US.
I would argue that laws are a reflection of the status quo. If people can be convinced that something is morally wrong, they will work against their own interests, regardless of fact. I don't know the true risk of any drug, but I do know that perscription drugs kill more people than illegal ones. As I get older, I get more cynical about societies judgements.
I remember a news report that talked about a train tragedy where the driver of the train crashed and killed a lot of people. The accident was blamed on MJ use. However, I noticed buried in the article that it was mentioned he had emptied two 6-packs of beer. What do you think was contributing most to his impaired judgement?
MJ is not much of a factor in driving, but if it were in the car, you better believe that the officer will report that on the ticket. Drunk or sleepy drivers might be a bigger issue. I suspect that people who smoke the MJ, might be a little less law abiding, and that those people might tend to take more risks. The 1/3 usage of MJ statistic is a good example of how correlation does not equal causation. The fact that the price of tea in China goes up and down with the level of rainfall in the US doesn't mean that one causes the other to happen--it just means that the two events have similiar variances (is that the right word? been a few years since I took statistics).
Risks could be easily understood by Negative Life Expectancy Years. Cancer effects people more as they age. Is it getting more prevalent due to environmental factors, or more due to the increasingly aging population?
But such a stat should be directed towards the group it effects, a childhood desease could appear to be more of a threat to a middle age person, so that you get 40 year olds going to the doctor worried about SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome).
Re:My personal favorite
on
Newsy Numbers
·
· Score: 2, Funny
42billion / 300million = $140 a year each diet books/ aprox US pop.
300/million X 20% literacy X 40% book buyers = 24 Million available to buy the book. 24 Mil X 30% (estimated percent of adults obese) = 6mil
$42,000mil / 6mil (obese book readers) = $7,000 spent/obr on diet books.
Number of other figures flying out of my rear = 192!
Re:Statistical Lies...
on
Newsy Numbers
·
· Score: 1
Half the people don't know that 75% of them never understood the term; "6 on one hand, half a dozen on the other."
A 50/50 proposition only equals one.
On average, people don't know what it means to be the mean.
{NOTE: I just made these up, are they half-way decent or just 100% corny?}
Ow, this is starting to get painful...
Re:My personal favorite
on
Newsy Numbers
·
· Score: 1
Since they are now allowing logging, clear-cutting and generally cutting off the tops of mountains for mining on National Parks and nature preserves, does it really matter if more or less land is "labeled" a wetland?
These jerks have been playing "opposite day" for about 1824 days too long. Every program seems to do the opposite of what it is named. The level of curiosity in this country means people don't move beyond the book cover.
Re:My personal favorite
on
Newsy Numbers
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Don't know that statistic, but the number of abortions since GWB took office has doubled. It's basically an economic issue of how hard it is to raise a family for middle and lower income women. So my guess is that his figure was pulled out of his @ss like some much else from this administration. But he will never be called on it--that I can assure you.
Now there is legislation in the works to make it a federal crime if a women does not report a pregnancy termination within 24 hours. Meaning, since my wife and I did not know until a week later that she had lost the 3 month fetus, she would instantly be a fugitive. Not only is such a law burdensome, intrusive and none of their damn bible-thumping business, but it also shows how ignorant the politicians can be.
God forbid I forget my wallet and show up to a pollitical rally without a drivers license. This country is getting scary.
More like, you need 20 missiles to be sure of killing one enemy missile because most likely they will have multi-warheads that will disperse before re-entering the atmosphere (available now for about 30 years).
Each one of your anit-missile missiles, in the good American military tradition, will probably cost 10 times the enemy ICBM.
Thus, to make this really effective, you will spend 200 times more on an anti-missile defense than your enemy. So, a conservative estimate would be about $2 trillion. That would defend against a moderate threat, not a full-scale attack.
I think it would be much more cost effective to end world hunger, pay for education of about 1/2 billion foreign children, and refinance all the debt of every third-world nation. You would still have about $200 billion left over. Much cheaper to actually be a good country again than an empire. Make their kids like us again.
Nobody is saying that we could NEVER accomplish this.
Everyone, except for scientists who are hired for things like "smoking is good for you" and "there is no global warming" are saying it is impractical. The area you are protecting is too great. The trajectories are infinite. The precision must be perfect... many orders of magnitude greater than a failed test.
This system could never work for an attack from Russia or China, it seems only designed (at whoppingly, huge price) to stop one or two missiles fired off from a desperate "liberated" country like Iran, Iraq, North Korea (get the idea?). A better use would be spending money on 747s with kinetic or laser kill technology to destroy missiles on take-off. As one example. They need "theatre control technologies". You'd want to control 50 square miles and you would need about 50 of these for a good size country. I haven't been briefed, but I have, without bragging (because the bar is so low with Bush), 10 times the President's insight. You guys so want the president to be right, that you ignore consistently stupid things coming out of his mouth. We need unglamorous, practical solutions based on pushing CURRENT technology. Not crap that is "blue sky".
Also, the patriot Missile system is a good example of this in a simpler form. It still doesn't work but 50% of the time with the slowest and easiest missile; the SCUD. So, perhaps a leader with insight would realize, that now is not the time to deploy when the technology isn't even there.
We are using scramjets now. And the X-33, and a few replacements of the Shuttle will use scramjet technology. Commercial jets will probably use this in the future, since it allows faster and more efficient force at high altittudes (you don't need to carry oxygen).
We could have bought off the entire USSR political establishment for less. Interesting that before USSR failed, Reagan was trying to secretly ship $50 billion to prop up the Regime.
But it was the IDEA of a noble and charitable America under Jimmy Carter that made people look at the Communist propaganda as cynical hogwash. It was the IDEA of America and Democracy that inspired people to push for Glasnost and Perestroika. The arms race only effected the economy, but the belief in Democracy effected the people.
Now America is just the strongest power. It doesn't stand up for the little guy, or human rights or much of anything but money. Todays America would never have inspired people in Russia. It would have just been us versus them.
But you will just jump up and down and think it was tanks and missiles and men thumping their chests. But your patriotism is effected by beliefs, in righteousness and what you think is valor. Don't you think that is the same thing that influences other people? Don't you think that the Iraqis now consider themselves David versus Goliath? People throwing away their own lives for a cause against overwhelming odds. Even though they have no chance of winning, or may be wrong, they are going to inspire more people than we, who are there for oil and schemes and power.
You say US nukes are useful because they inspire terror. That is pretty insightful and honest. For one second in your life, could you reflect on that statement.
Perhaps you should think about that when you listen to people say this is simply good versus evil. What makes us better?
Do you seriously think that GWB has anything to do with the thing failing?
Yes. It's called leadership. It's called, being curious and looking at various issues. This is typical Bush. It's macho, has no real chance of success, and is expensive. It was also his choice to begin production before a working system is designed--sounds like the A-1 Abrams again. But he must be in a hurry to pay somebody.
Money get spent to advance our society along. This sounds like the twisted newspeak of GWB. It is grand, sweeping and general. It means nothing and applies no responsibility. Money is spent for mankind... now who could be against that? We are talking of about $50 billion for this stupid program, while kids are holding back sales to get school supplies. There doesn't seem to be any money for what people really need.
Compare this to what is spent in national defense. Do I need to correct that statement? This is national defense. It competes with troop transports, flak jackets and maybe the healthcare that won't be spent on injured National Guard troops who come back from Iraq in pieces.
In the end, this stuff (see; Star Wars), has little practical use and just lines pockets of some over-fed fat cats.
We are only jerking knees because we have a central nervous system. I don't know many examples of Bush "plans" that didn't have something corrupt or stupid going on behind the scenes.
Note; if Bush actually did something intelligent/good like fusion, then your arguement might have a point. But it only highlights the fact that you have nothing (save faith) to show for any of the Bush inc. plans so far.
OK. Here we go again. Criticizing the US means we want to be part of X country that is having a bad time. Why is the Third World so bad? Because of US policies, exploitation and crimes against them. Why is the US good? Because it had Liberals running things. Why do Liberals consider leaving? Because the "Neo Conservatives" are doing to us what we have done to the third world.
I've got a great country for you; almost no taxes, no stupid socialist policies like healthcare and welfare, no limits on company progress, no silly lawyers suing you for malpractice or pollution, no tolerance for criticism of wonderful actions of the productive wealth multinational corporations. Wow, sounds like heaven doesn't it. Well my friend, Mexico is just one fence jump away for you and all your buddies.
The fact that people from the "Exploited World" try so hard to enter America is that we have lots of money, and a few good things.
"Morality over moral relativism." Wow, that is code for; I want simple solutions and simple answers. I haven't met a Liberal who HAD moral relativism. They had fewer simple answers because they tend to know more history, or foreign people so they know there is more to the issue than a Fox news sound bite. I never heard "beer good, fire bad". See, now, that is pretty straight forward. Bin Laden had faith, clear purpose and moral certainty, just like you. How does a black and white morality make you any more RIGHT in the eyes of God? If you want simple Christianity then Love everyone as you would have them love you. And judge no one lest ye be judged. No excuses. No passage of Leviticus that mentions a guy getting a rock to the head. Seems like what Moral Certainty means is that Satan has given you marching orders and he wants no deviation on your trip to your fiery reward. I mean, if I were evil, I'd want my evil doers not to listen to anything that could make them think they were wrong. Go and worship Donald Trump.
And you are so unbelievably ignorant if you think Iraq and Afghanistan are better off right now. That would have required a good Liberal planner to pull off. Liberals have a much better track record of winning wars and creating prosperity. Not that the distinction really matters in politics these days, but I thought saying it might piss you off.
So, when America finally does suck, it will be because of the criticism, right? -- --Social Ills are never worse then their cures.
How would we destroy their missiles on the ground exactly? How many did we stop durring Gulf War I? NONE.
We had the Patriot Missile system covering a small area where we knew where missiles were coming from. Even then, it was a massive failure. The Patriot was as dangerous as the incoming missiles--but that was hushed up a bit. SCUDs are about the slowest and easiest to hit missiles that might carry a payload. They aren't the threat here. We will be facing faster, smaller, smarter missiles or even long-range cannon. More likely briefcases.
But there were no laser beams from the sky, or bunker-busting missiles destroying any SCUDs before they left the ground. Even during the war. So yeah, it is plausible that this is only to get the stray, desparate nuke that is launched by the tyrant who doesn't plan to see tomorrow. In fact, that is the only plausible reason I would deploy such a system.
Of course that and maybe, lulling the populace, or giving lots of pork to business buddies on a system that Bush will never be alive to be called to task for. And of course, I would never, ever tell the truth about it. Pretty much Standard Operating Procedure if you ask me.
Or else, Bush really is just a dumb-ass and thinks it would work.
Does it make sense now? Bush has a Tri-fecta here; lull populace, money for chronies, look tough and techy. Win. Win. Win!
Pure ass. Could we spend this money on health care or education? Why not even waste it on welfare? No. No? That wouldn't provide for people being "do-it-your-selfers" or whatever the current excuse for NeoCons to not care about others is these days. But somehow, a hightech, useless system that never works is a better use.
Can I be exempted from the national debt if I don't agree with how this money is wasted?
The Clinton administration had a program whereby they actually paid for security guards and troops in Russia to guard nuclear weapons. Bush ended that program, and as a result, since 2000, we have had a black market awash in nuclear material.
Prevention would have helped a bit more on this then a useless, and really, really expensive missile shield. Bush sucks, he sucks he sucks he sucks. Did I mention that he sucks?
But he is a hero to the clueless, because it makes them feel like they could be in charge with a movie inspired simple idea. Hey, I enjoy a good Swarzeneggar picture along with the next red blooded American, but I don't think that this US vs THEM, shoot until THEM is gone approach ever, ever, ever works.
There are too many irrational people all nodding to eachothers dumb ideas. Here is a short list:
Supply-side economics. NO. Rich investors do not make markets. People who need stuff and want to buy make markets. Rich people have disposable income which they can invest or buy a plane with. They spend about the same no matter what the economy. That is why it is called; "disposable income". They will not invest in a company that won't sell a product. Companies don't sell products that don't have markets. Note; the discretionary income of the middle and lower class creates the market.
War on drugs. What, 25 years and no progress? Must be all that money involved.
Celibacy. Some people want it, some don't. Some just pretend to make their parents happy, but then do it anyway because they feel good. The ones getting pregnant are the ones that have NOT been told about birth countrol. Good, well adjusted and educated kids from Liberal families ARE NOT GETTING PREGNANT or NOT GETTING ABORTIONS in droves. The fact is, since 2000, abortions have doubled under the current "moral regime". It has to do with poverty and lack of education.
Moralism. Look at any good Theocracy (that means religious-controlled governments) and you will see abundant tyranny. Things appear moral, because people get killed for NOT praying and nobody complains because the women get killed for being raped. We used to have a LOT more religion and none of these Progressive Liberals who were tolerant of gays and such. Yeah, it was called the Victorian era. And it sucked. And men say prostitutes a lot more than they do today. And it was also REALLY moeal during the "dark ages". So don't look at science as the root of all evil. It's ignorance that will kill you quicker. But theocracy is a good way to get rid of dissent and make sure you keep the status quo. Saudia Arabia is a theocracy, yet the rich princes all go to University in the United States. They get busy with the booty--as anyone who has been at one of their parties would know. The wealthy only have to play MORAL for the dupes. The rubes. The proletariat. The NeoCon.
I concur. I am more afraid of the ignorant NeoCons in this country supporting the Bush regime than I am of any foreign, two-bit terrorist. Now Rush would translate that as "liberals hate America and want the enemy to succeed". I would ignore this army of brain-dead if they weren't damn well everywhere these days.
Read the book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins. I don't want to here from any more NeoCons who think everyone else is ignorant until they've attempted to read that book. Which means, I'm tired of NeoCons. Everyone saying that the sky is falling is supposed to be a conspiracy nut.
"They do not hate our freedoms." They don't really give a damn. They hate our policies. It's the Bush regime that hates our freedom. Seems that freedom let 9/11 happen.
It is so pointless to argue. These NeoCons are too full of themselves to listen to anyone. I'm just a socialist, tree hugging hippy. Ignore me. Now I'll go read some Chomsky and sip sullenly at my choclate milk.
Yeah, this is just the occassional freelancer. Makes us all thing that "something is being done". Drugs and imprisonment are the status quo for those with no status.
Bush does not plan. He acts. And he is never wrong. If he thinks this should be done, then it will be done.
That's why we are all worried whenever we here of a Bush "plan". I take comfort in the fact that any future failures will be do to some social support program that helps the less fortunate.
Well, you might have a point, if you could actually point out something that Bush has done that hasn't been; A) Corrupt or making big bucks for a corporation that shortly has another overpaid consultant/lobbyist on its payroll who was formerly a "public servant" (see; Energy Bill, Healthcare Reform, Clear Skys Initiative or Education, via the testing companies that gave him big bucks). B) Just plain evil, cynical, or done to spite someone who at one time criticised him (see; cleanup of CIA, Note the funds diverted from Malaria research to AIDs and then, of course, not spent). C) Just plain stupid (see; missile defense system, Mission to Mars (which will be used to develop another Missile Defense, this time with Welfare money), or any job position he has held). D) Corrupt (please note his Oil companies trading with Iraq for all you UN-bashers out there). E) Payout to religion or phoney patriotism (don't bother on this, if you don't get it, then you aren't on a fact based reality plan right now, God will get back to you on a "need to know" basis. Stand by). F) All of the above.
So, yeah, I think among progressives, liberals and the educated elite (see; anyone smarter than you) there is a knee-jerk reaction to anything Bush comes up with. Knee-jerks happen when people get stung--at least those who have a central nervous system. Some investigation might prove that this is a prudent step. Or it might be just another way to let another 9/11 "accident" happen. But don't concern yourself. Just let the people who've been screwing us for 4 years handle everything.
Oh, and be sure to donate when some school kid comes to the house as a fund raiser to get a new Central Air system for the school. Or books.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember taking calculus my first year in college. I had no foundation in it, and the teacher didn't explain anything, other than to say; "here is the formula". I did poorly and had to withdraw.
Later, I got some explaination of f(x), and everything fell into place. I made great grades with little study because it was now easy.
So the question is; was my brain structure mathematically flawed before so that I couldn't DO math, or was it that I didn't know what I was doing?
For most of us, it's about what we already understand. Perhaps the results that we are getting about "female brain structures" may actually be real data. What we need to look at is WHY. Perhaps we are teaching Math in the wrong way.
Give most anyone a good teacher and they can learn most anything.
IBM had a big shakeup in the 90's. They are pretty much a totally new company since then. They are now a services company and are pretty agnostic on platforms--even though they develop their own processor and OS--they are performance-centric.
I think you're just spouting. You have to acknowledge when companies do things "the good way" in oder to have credibility on criticizing bad companies. IBM has been competing on their ability and performance. They are one of the top companies in creating patents. And I don't see them practicing any monopoly abuses like they used to.
They are a totally reformed company, and I think that should be recognized. Their strategy is that they will be a facilitator in an open technology market. By releasing the patents, they are hoping to shore up the "free" software market. I don't see any "embrace and extend" strategy in giving away these patents--other than they allow development along a path where they have strength. But they won't be able to come along a sue people later, so it is good for developers in general if more companies adopted this strategy.
The opposing strategy is a Royalty/Patent hegenomy where no one can develop without paying you dues and implementing your standards. That's Microsoft, and THAT is a dark future for independant developers.
So please, state something specific in the past 6 years that proves your point on IBM.
This is because they can't afford good cable programming. What else are you going to do on a boring Friday night? ;)
I've seen stats that show there is an inverse relationship between how much whoopi someone gets and their education level. PHD's almost get cobwebs compared to a good high-school drop out in a trailer park (not to denegrate anyone, but hey, there is a trend).
But to get back to the point, the people who are NOT educated or have access to birth control are the ones getting pregnant. If we want to make abortions more rare we will do three things;
1) Educate and make available methods of birth control.
2) Raise the minimum wage. The working poor creates desperate situations for single mothers and financial stress is the number one reason for divorce.
3) Get these church ladies off the education boards because all they are doing is pushing their own brand of piety.
It gets me angry that some who have it so well and think they are so close to God, want to practice their "survival of the fittest" economics with people. They refuse basic healthcare and a livealbe wage to the bottom tier of society. They refuse real sex education and birth control. Then they sit back from their ivory towers and tell the poor 16 year old girl who has no prospects, no future and is looking at raising a child alone that she MUST bring it to term and either raise it or give it up for adoption. I don't think there is anything remotely tougher than giving a kid you brought to term up for adoption.
If this were so important to God, why didn't he mention anything about fetuses in the Bible?
Rant over.
I feel sad that I immediately understood your reference to Toonces. I can still see that dumb stuffed doll steering the car on Saturday Night Live. Somehow, it was etched on my brain.
MJ and Cocaine used to be legal in the US. A better example would be the speed limit. US interstates were designed for 70 mph vehicles and todays cars are even better. So more people feel comfortable driving faster. So a significant amount of people were not going 55. That might have been a good reason for the law change.
Automakers and Standard Oil conspired to get rid of trolley cars in the US.
I would argue that laws are a reflection of the status quo. If people can be convinced that something is morally wrong, they will work against their own interests, regardless of fact. I don't know the true risk of any drug, but I do know that perscription drugs kill more people than illegal ones. As I get older, I get more cynical about societies judgements.
I remember a news report that talked about a train tragedy where the driver of the train crashed and killed a lot of people. The accident was blamed on MJ use. However, I noticed buried in the article that it was mentioned he had emptied two 6-packs of beer. What do you think was contributing most to his impaired judgement?
MJ is not much of a factor in driving, but if it were in the car, you better believe that the officer will report that on the ticket. Drunk or sleepy drivers might be a bigger issue. I suspect that people who smoke the MJ, might be a little less law abiding, and that those people might tend to take more risks. The 1/3 usage of MJ statistic is a good example of how correlation does not equal causation. The fact that the price of tea in China goes up and down with the level of rainfall in the US doesn't mean that one causes the other to happen--it just means that the two events have similiar variances (is that the right word? been a few years since I took statistics).
That makes a great deal of sense.
Risks could be easily understood by Negative Life Expectancy Years. Cancer effects people more as they age. Is it getting more prevalent due to environmental factors, or more due to the increasingly aging population?
But such a stat should be directed towards the group it effects, a childhood desease could appear to be more of a threat to a middle age person, so that you get 40 year olds going to the doctor worried about SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome).
42billion / 300million = $140 a year each
diet books/ aprox US pop.
300/million X 20% literacy X 40% book buyers = 24 Million available to buy the book.
24 Mil X 30% (estimated percent of adults obese) = 6mil
$42,000mil / 6mil (obese book readers) = $7,000 spent/obr on diet books.
Number of other figures flying out of my rear = 192!
Half the people don't know that 75% of them never understood the term; "6 on one hand, half a dozen on the other."
A 50/50 proposition only equals one.
On average, people don't know what it means to be the mean.
{NOTE: I just made these up, are they half-way decent or just 100% corny?}
Ow, this is starting to get painful...
Since they are now allowing logging, clear-cutting and generally cutting off the tops of mountains for mining on National Parks and nature preserves, does it really matter if more or less land is "labeled" a wetland?
These jerks have been playing "opposite day" for about 1824 days too long. Every program seems to do the opposite of what it is named. The level of curiosity in this country means people don't move beyond the book cover.
Don't know that statistic, but the number of abortions since GWB took office has doubled. It's basically an economic issue of how hard it is to raise a family for middle and lower income women. So my guess is that his figure was pulled out of his @ss like some much else from this administration. But he will never be called on it--that I can assure you.
Now there is legislation in the works to make it a federal crime if a women does not report a pregnancy termination within 24 hours. Meaning, since my wife and I did not know until a week later that she had lost the 3 month fetus, she would instantly be a fugitive. Not only is such a law burdensome, intrusive and none of their damn bible-thumping business, but it also shows how ignorant the politicians can be.
God forbid I forget my wallet and show up to a pollitical rally without a drivers license. This country is getting scary.
More like, you need 20 missiles to be sure of killing one enemy missile because most likely they will have multi-warheads that will disperse before re-entering the atmosphere (available now for about 30 years).
Each one of your anit-missile missiles, in the good American military tradition, will probably cost 10 times the enemy ICBM.
Thus, to make this really effective, you will spend 200 times more on an anti-missile defense than your enemy. So, a conservative estimate would be about $2 trillion. That would defend against a moderate threat, not a full-scale attack.
I think it would be much more cost effective to end world hunger, pay for education of about 1/2 billion foreign children, and refinance all the debt of every third-world nation. You would still have about $200 billion left over. Much cheaper to actually be a good country again than an empire. Make their kids like us again.
Nobody is saying that we could NEVER accomplish this.
Everyone, except for scientists who are hired for things like "smoking is good for you" and "there is no global warming" are saying it is impractical. The area you are protecting is too great. The trajectories are infinite. The precision must be perfect... many orders of magnitude greater than a failed test.
This system could never work for an attack from Russia or China, it seems only designed (at whoppingly, huge price) to stop one or two missiles fired off from a desperate "liberated" country like Iran, Iraq, North Korea (get the idea?). A better use would be spending money on 747s with kinetic or laser kill technology to destroy missiles on take-off. As one example. They need "theatre control technologies". You'd want to control 50 square miles and you would need about 50 of these for a good size country. I haven't been briefed, but I have, without bragging (because the bar is so low with Bush), 10 times the President's insight. You guys so want the president to be right, that you ignore consistently stupid things coming out of his mouth. We need unglamorous, practical solutions based on pushing CURRENT technology. Not crap that is "blue sky".
Also, the patriot Missile system is a good example of this in a simpler form. It still doesn't work but 50% of the time with the slowest and easiest missile; the SCUD. So, perhaps a leader with insight would realize, that now is not the time to deploy when the technology isn't even there.
We are using scramjets now. And the X-33, and a few replacements of the Shuttle will use scramjet technology. Commercial jets will probably use this in the future, since it allows faster and more efficient force at high altittudes (you don't need to carry oxygen).
Your opinion on the matter is noise.
You must be referring to Star Wars.
We could have bought off the entire USSR political establishment for less. Interesting that before USSR failed, Reagan was trying to secretly ship $50 billion to prop up the Regime.
But it was the IDEA of a noble and charitable America under Jimmy Carter that made people look at the Communist propaganda as cynical hogwash. It was the IDEA of America and Democracy that inspired people to push for Glasnost and Perestroika. The arms race only effected the economy, but the belief in Democracy effected the people.
Now America is just the strongest power. It doesn't stand up for the little guy, or human rights or much of anything but money. Todays America would never have inspired people in Russia. It would have just been us versus them.
But you will just jump up and down and think it was tanks and missiles and men thumping their chests. But your patriotism is effected by beliefs, in righteousness and what you think is valor. Don't you think that is the same thing that influences other people? Don't you think that the Iraqis now consider themselves David versus Goliath? People throwing away their own lives for a cause against overwhelming odds. Even though they have no chance of winning, or may be wrong, they are going to inspire more people than we, who are there for oil and schemes and power.
You say US nukes are useful because they inspire terror. That is pretty insightful and honest. For one second in your life, could you reflect on that statement.
Perhaps you should think about that when you listen to people say this is simply good versus evil. What makes us better?
Do you seriously think that GWB has anything to do with the thing failing?
Yes. It's called leadership. It's called, being curious and looking at various issues. This is typical Bush. It's macho, has no real chance of success, and is expensive. It was also his choice to begin production before a working system is designed--sounds like the A-1 Abrams again. But he must be in a hurry to pay somebody.
Money get spent to advance our society along.
This sounds like the twisted newspeak of GWB. It is grand, sweeping and general. It means nothing and applies no responsibility. Money is spent for mankind... now who could be against that? We are talking of about $50 billion for this stupid program, while kids are holding back sales to get school supplies. There doesn't seem to be any money for what people really need.
Compare this to what is spent in national defense.
Do I need to correct that statement? This is national defense. It competes with troop transports, flak jackets and maybe the healthcare that won't be spent on injured National Guard troops who come back from Iraq in pieces.
In the end, this stuff (see; Star Wars), has little practical use and just lines pockets of some over-fed fat cats.
We are only jerking knees because we have a central nervous system. I don't know many examples of Bush "plans" that didn't have something corrupt or stupid going on behind the scenes.
Note; if Bush actually did something intelligent/good like fusion, then your arguement might have a point. But it only highlights the fact that you have nothing (save faith) to show for any of the Bush inc. plans so far.
You are due for a spasm.
Next version of OS X will have encrypted swap and cache if you choose to enable it.
Best if you just don't get the notice of the black helicopters in the first place. Make lots of friends.
OK. Here we go again. Criticizing the US means we want to be part of X country that is having a bad time. Why is the Third World so bad? Because of US policies, exploitation and crimes against them. Why is the US good? Because it had Liberals running things. Why do Liberals consider leaving? Because the "Neo Conservatives" are doing to us what we have done to the third world.
I've got a great country for you; almost no taxes, no stupid socialist policies like healthcare and welfare, no limits on company progress, no silly lawyers suing you for malpractice or pollution, no tolerance for criticism of wonderful actions of the productive wealth multinational corporations. Wow, sounds like heaven doesn't it. Well my friend, Mexico is just one fence jump away for you and all your buddies.
The fact that people from the "Exploited World" try so hard to enter America is that we have lots of money, and a few good things.
"Morality over moral relativism." Wow, that is code for; I want simple solutions and simple answers. I haven't met a Liberal who HAD moral relativism. They had fewer simple answers because they tend to know more history, or foreign people so they know there is more to the issue than a Fox news sound bite. I never heard "beer good, fire bad". See, now, that is pretty straight forward. Bin Laden had faith, clear purpose and moral certainty, just like you. How does a black and white morality make you any more RIGHT in the eyes of God? If you want simple Christianity then Love everyone as you would have them love you. And judge no one lest ye be judged. No excuses. No passage of Leviticus that mentions a guy getting a rock to the head. Seems like what Moral Certainty means is that Satan has given you marching orders and he wants no deviation on your trip to your fiery reward. I mean, if I were evil, I'd want my evil doers not to listen to anything that could make them think they were wrong. Go and worship Donald Trump.
And you are so unbelievably ignorant if you think Iraq and Afghanistan are better off right now. That would have required a good Liberal planner to pull off. Liberals have a much better track record of winning wars and creating prosperity. Not that the distinction really matters in politics these days, but I thought saying it might piss you off.
So, when America finally does suck, it will be because of the criticism, right?
--
--Social Ills are never worse then their cures.
How would we destroy their missiles on the ground exactly? How many did we stop durring Gulf War I? NONE.
We had the Patriot Missile system covering a small area where we knew where missiles were coming from. Even then, it was a massive failure. The Patriot was as dangerous as the incoming missiles--but that was hushed up a bit. SCUDs are about the slowest and easiest to hit missiles that might carry a payload. They aren't the threat here. We will be facing faster, smaller, smarter missiles or even long-range cannon. More likely briefcases.
But there were no laser beams from the sky, or bunker-busting missiles destroying any SCUDs before they left the ground. Even during the war. So yeah, it is plausible that this is only to get the stray, desparate nuke that is launched by the tyrant who doesn't plan to see tomorrow. In fact, that is the only plausible reason I would deploy such a system.
Of course that and maybe, lulling the populace, or giving lots of pork to business buddies on a system that Bush will never be alive to be called to task for. And of course, I would never, ever tell the truth about it. Pretty much Standard Operating Procedure if you ask me.
Or else, Bush really is just a dumb-ass and thinks it would work.
Does it make sense now? Bush has a Tri-fecta here; lull populace, money for chronies, look tough and techy. Win. Win. Win!
Pure ass. Could we spend this money on health care or education? Why not even waste it on welfare? No. No? That wouldn't provide for people being "do-it-your-selfers" or whatever the current excuse for NeoCons to not care about others is these days. But somehow, a hightech, useless system that never works is a better use.
Can I be exempted from the national debt if I don't agree with how this money is wasted?
No?
I thought not.
The Clinton administration had a program whereby they actually paid for security guards and troops in Russia to guard nuclear weapons. Bush ended that program, and as a result, since 2000, we have had a black market awash in nuclear material.
Prevention would have helped a bit more on this then a useless, and really, really expensive missile shield. Bush sucks, he sucks he sucks he sucks. Did I mention that he sucks?
But he is a hero to the clueless, because it makes them feel like they could be in charge with a movie inspired simple idea. Hey, I enjoy a good Swarzeneggar picture along with the next red blooded American, but I don't think that this US vs THEM, shoot until THEM is gone approach ever, ever, ever works.
There are too many irrational people all nodding to eachothers dumb ideas. Here is a short list:
Supply-side economics. NO. Rich investors do not make markets. People who need stuff and want to buy make markets. Rich people have disposable income which they can invest or buy a plane with. They spend about the same no matter what the economy. That is why it is called; "disposable income". They will not invest in a company that won't sell a product. Companies don't sell products that don't have markets. Note; the discretionary income of the middle and lower class creates the market.
War on drugs. What, 25 years and no progress? Must be all that money involved.
Celibacy. Some people want it, some don't. Some just pretend to make their parents happy, but then do it anyway because they feel good. The ones getting pregnant are the ones that have NOT been told about birth countrol. Good, well adjusted and educated kids from Liberal families ARE NOT GETTING PREGNANT or NOT GETTING ABORTIONS in droves. The fact is, since 2000, abortions have doubled under the current "moral regime". It has to do with poverty and lack of education.
Moralism. Look at any good Theocracy (that means religious-controlled governments) and you will see abundant tyranny. Things appear moral, because people get killed for NOT praying and nobody complains because the women get killed for being raped. We used to have a LOT more religion and none of these Progressive Liberals who were tolerant of gays and such. Yeah, it was called the Victorian era. And it sucked. And men say prostitutes a lot more than they do today. And it was also REALLY moeal during the "dark ages". So don't look at science as the root of all evil. It's ignorance that will kill you quicker. But theocracy is a good way to get rid of dissent and make sure you keep the status quo. Saudia Arabia is a theocracy, yet the rich princes all go to University in the United States. They get busy with the booty--as anyone who has been at one of their parties would know. The wealthy only have to play MORAL for the dupes. The rubes. The proletariat. The NeoCon.
I could go on.
I concur. I am more afraid of the ignorant NeoCons in this country supporting the Bush regime than I am of any foreign, two-bit terrorist. Now Rush would translate that as "liberals hate America and want the enemy to succeed". I would ignore this army of brain-dead if they weren't damn well everywhere these days.
Read the book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins. I don't want to here from any more NeoCons who think everyone else is ignorant until they've attempted to read that book. Which means, I'm tired of NeoCons. Everyone saying that the sky is falling is supposed to be a conspiracy nut.
"They do not hate our freedoms." They don't really give a damn. They hate our policies. It's the Bush regime that hates our freedom. Seems that freedom let 9/11 happen.
It is so pointless to argue. These NeoCons are too full of themselves to listen to anyone. I'm just a socialist, tree hugging hippy. Ignore me. Now I'll go read some Chomsky and sip sullenly at my choclate milk.
300 x 2000 = 600,000 pounds.
Say one stomach could hold 1/2 pound.
That is 1.2 million people taking "mule flights".
Yeah, this is just the occassional freelancer. Makes us all thing that "something is being done". Drugs and imprisonment are the status quo for those with no status.
Yeah, like a plan to invade Iraq.
Bush does not plan. He acts. And he is never wrong. If he thinks this should be done, then it will be done.
That's why we are all worried whenever we here of a Bush "plan". I take comfort in the fact that any future failures will be do to some social support program that helps the less fortunate.
Well, you might have a point, if you could actually point out something that Bush has done that hasn't been;
A) Corrupt or making big bucks for a corporation that shortly has another overpaid consultant/lobbyist on its payroll who was formerly a "public servant" (see; Energy Bill, Healthcare Reform, Clear Skys Initiative or Education, via the testing companies that gave him big bucks).
B) Just plain evil, cynical, or done to spite someone who at one time criticised him (see; cleanup of CIA, Note the funds diverted from Malaria research to AIDs and then, of course, not spent).
C) Just plain stupid (see; missile defense system, Mission to Mars (which will be used to develop another Missile Defense, this time with Welfare money), or any job position he has held).
D) Corrupt (please note his Oil companies trading with Iraq for all you UN-bashers out there).
E) Payout to religion or phoney patriotism (don't bother on this, if you don't get it, then you aren't on a fact based reality plan right now, God will get back to you on a "need to know" basis. Stand by).
F) All of the above.
So, yeah, I think among progressives, liberals and the educated elite (see; anyone smarter than you) there is a knee-jerk reaction to anything Bush comes up with. Knee-jerks happen when people get stung--at least those who have a central nervous system. Some investigation might prove that this is a prudent step. Or it might be just another way to let another 9/11 "accident" happen. But don't concern yourself. Just let the people who've been screwing us for 4 years handle everything.
Oh, and be sure to donate when some school kid comes to the house as a fund raiser to get a new Central Air system for the school. Or books.